Congress lucked out . The public won't be interested in this bill because the news will be all about Michael Jackson. So it goes.
On Jun 27, 12:35�pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > [Get Copyright Permissions] > <http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> �E-Mail > <http://license.icopyright.net/g1/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Print > <http://license.icopyright.net/g2/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Save > <http://license.icopyright.net/s13/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Post > <http://license.icopyright.net/g3/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Get Photos > <http://license.icopyright.net/g5/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | Get > Reprints <http://license.icopyright.net/s17/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> | > Reuse Options <http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86> > > Jun 27, 11:12 AM EDT > > Winners and losers emerge in climate bill > > By CHRIS KAHN > AP Energy Writer > > NEW YORK (AP) -- In addition to raising energy prices, the climate > legislation that's winding through Congress would create a parallel > financial system with a carbon-based currency. > > The House on Friday narrowly passed landmark legislation meant to curb > greenhouse gas emissions and create an energy-efficient economy, voting > 219-212. President Barack Obama on Saturday urged senators to follow suit. > > Everyone from small farmers to nuclear energy companies would be forced > to re-evaluate their place in the new order. Power plants, factories and > refineries would feel the first impact if the federal government moves > ahead with plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 > levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent near the end of the century. > > The sharply debated bill's fate is unclear in the Senate. A major > struggle is expected with 60 votes needed to overcome a certain > Republican filibuster. > > How much it will affect other industries is still a matter of intense > debate, though the primary winners and losers are already emerging. > > --- > > The Winners: > > Solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable energy companies, including > nuclear, are some of the obvious winners in a carbon economy. > > In addition to the billions of federal stimulus dollars they expect to > receive, those industries can expect to see a huge boost in investment > as utilities and power companies are forced to cut their carbon > emissions. Companies like Florida Power & Light Co., Arizona Public > Service, Southern California Edison and others are already investing in > solar farms and other renewable energy projects, and they'll likely > spend even more to increase the mix of carbon-neutral energy sources. > > Farmers also will find new ways to make money in a carbon economy. > Carbon consultants like the International Carbon Bank & Exchange in > Florida see huge potential in agriculture for managing carbon emissions. > Farmers that till their soil differently or apply new environmental > techniques can get money by cooperating with a polluter as a carbon > "offset." > > Owners of large tracts of forest land also will get a lot of interest > from the business community. Like farmers, environmental experts see > them as a huge player in the carbon economy because of their natural > ability to absorb carbon. > > Louis Blumberg, director of climate change for the Nature Conservancy's > California chapter, envisions a system in which forest owners could make > money simply by signing an agreement to cut down fewer trees for lumber. > > The Nature Conservancy did just that last year with the Conservation > Fund, a nonprofit agency that owns about 24,000 acres of redwood and > douglas fir forest northwest of San Francisco. The groups changed the > logging schedule on the property, and the fund expects to receive about > $2 million from Pacific Gas and Electric, which participates in a > regional climate initiative similar to the one that the Waxman-Markey > bill would create around the country. > > "This is really a model of what can happen," Blumberg said. "Property > owners everywhere want to figure out a way to be part of this." > > --- > > The Losers: > > Anyone who pays an electric bill would likely feel the impact of climate > legislation. Utilities will try to raise rates as they invest in > cleaner-yet-more-expensive energy sources. Some have already announced > plans to do so. Petroleum companies also may try to import more of their > refined gas and heating oil from countries with no carbon law, which > will raise costs. > > The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental > Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would > affect energy costs. > > The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. The > EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year. > > The American Petroleum Institute disputed both estimates, saying the > bill could cost the average household up to $3,300 by 2020. > > "That is more than a few postage stamps," API President Jack Gerard said > in a slap at Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. Markey has compared new energy > costs to a postage stamp per day. > > API has tried to paint the bill as a job killer that would choke off > efforts to pull the economy out of recession. > > "While we support creating new jobs, the legislation offers an > unnecessary and false choice of eliminating good jobs in the oil and > natural gas industry to create green jobs," Gerard said. > > Oil and gas companies have spent record amounts of money lobbying > Congress recently as they try to blunt the impact of the bill. > > Refiners, in particular, say the inherent costs in the legislation could > shift some fuel production outside the U.S., where refiners would not be > bound by its provisions. > > The National Petrochemical & Refiners Association also says the > legislation hurts them two different ways, by capping emissions from > refineries as well as emissions from the fuels they produce. But > refiners say they are not recieving enough credits. > > The association says the legislation could cost U.S. refiners as much as > $58 billion a year. > > Coal miners also are worried because it might cut into demand for coal, > which is loaded with carbon. Mining also uses a lot of energy, so the > rise in energy costs would hurt their bottom line. > > The country gets about half of its electricity from coal. Some utilities > that rely on coal to generate much of their electricity worried about > initial versions of the legislation that they said would lead to > skyrocketing rates. The current version will mean much smaller > increases, they said. > > Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power said the legislation will > send rates about 25 percent higher by 2015; the initial version would > have meant rate hikes of 65 percent to 75 percent. > > Another big utility that relies on coal, Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke > Energy, said the legislation creates regulatory certainty for an > industry that spends billions on capital expenditures annually. If > Congress does not act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will > after the U.S. Supreme Court gave the agency authority to regulate > emissions under the Clean Air Act, Jim Rogers, Duke's chairman, > president and CEO, said in a letter to U.S. Rep. James Clyburn obtained > by The Associated Press. > > "While the EPA may have the technical expertise to create > environmentally sound regulations, it lacks the explicit legislative > authority to craft an environmentally sound program that minimizes costs > to consumers and our economy," the letter said. "So leaving the EPA with > the responsibility to develop and implement a program that will touch > every aspect of our daily lives is neither appropriate nor in the best > interest of our nation." > > Rogers said the initial legislation would have required consumers in > states where fossil fuels make up the majority of electric generation to > pay double - first to purchase the allowances to keep current generation > operational and then for investments in low-carbon technology. > > Wayne Leonard, chairman and president of New Orleans-based Entergy, said > his company is looking at its alternatives such as biomass and expanding > production from its nuclear plants to cut emissions. > > --- > > John Porretto in Houston, Mark Williams in Columbus, Ohio, and Tim Huber > in Charleston, W.Va., contributed to this report. > > � 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not > be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about > our Privacy Policy <http://apdigitalnews.com/privacy.html>. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
